How many of you believe the Earth is flat? Go.......

I realize there are nuances to the atmosphere/space discussion, but my point is that you all are too easily convinced by ever more technical distinctions and scientific sounding explanations. To the point you can’t back up and see the forest for the trees so to say. And my, that’s silly forest.
 
🤣🤣🤣

1713961110708.png
 
acceptance said:
You’re going to have to be more specific Beaker. I haven’t bothered reading the article either but I can tell they are just using fancy words that might approximate “feelings” but aren’t truly applicable. Suspect you’re doing the same.
Click to expand...

I think those "fancy words" describe your "views" of many topics that are posted here very well. Especially anything scientific. I've accused you of all 3 of them multiple times and it's funny to see someone else group them together as well.


I'm guessing the article had to do with transgender and all that, and honestly, I don't think that is really a scientific discussion. Personally I think Gender and Sex are two different things. Your genitalia and reproductive abilities determine your sex. Gender is a sociological term. It has the ability to change with society. Some people are ok with that. Some aren't. it is what it is.
 
Aynirar27 said:
Personally I think Gender and Sex are two different things. Your genitalia and reproductive abilities determine your sex. Gender is a sociological term. It has the ability to change with society. Some people are ok with that. Some aren't. it is what it is.
Click to expand...
I agree there is more of a case to be made for “gender”, but I’d also argue the two — gender and biological sex — are inextricably linked. But anyways, you’re still not offering a specific example to support your critique.
 
acceptance said:
I agree there is more of a case to be made for “gender”, but I’d also argue the two — gender and biological sex — are inextricably linked. But anyways, you’re still not offering a specific example to support your critique.
Click to expand...
give a kid a stuffed animal and they will call it a he or a she even though it has zero masculine or feminine traits. people will refer to cars or guitars, etc, as "she" or "her". Things that do not have a biological sex can and are assigned genders all the time. They are not inextricably linked. sometimes they overlap, but they don't have to.
 
Aynirar27 said:
give a kid a stuffed animal and they will call it a he or a she even though it has zero masculine or feminine traits. people will refer to cars or guitars, etc, as "she" or "her". Things that do not have a biological sex can and are assigned genders all the time. They are not inextricably linked. sometimes they overlap, but they don't have to.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that this is nonetheless based on average behavioral differences between the sexes, rooted in biological differences. For example aggression in men, nurturing and mothering instincts in women.
 
acceptance said:
I’d argue that this is nonetheless based on average behavioral differences between the sexes, rooted in biological differences. For example aggression in men, nurturing and mothering instincts in women.
Click to expand...

Those are extremely blurred lines
 
Aynirar27 said:
Those are extremely blurred lines
Click to expand...
Well, I said "on average". What seems to be getting people confused is the idea that if they are a man they shouldn't be nurturing or if they are a women they shouldn't be aggressive and if they are then they must be in the wrong body.
 
acceptance said:
Well, I said "on average". What seems to be getting people confused is the idea that if they are a man they shouldn't be nurturing or if they are a women they shouldn't be aggressive and if they are then they must be in the wrong body.
Click to expand...
I can’t say I’ve ever heard that be used as a reason for someone questioning their gender, but maybe you have.
 
Can we please keep it on topic? :doh:


Believing that a girl can be a boy by becoming flat chested is like a some of you never becoming an astronaut because you believe in a flat earth.

:dunno:
 
Thumbpicker said:
The word planet goes back to antiquity and the ancients used to think it was simple - they used to know about the planets out to Saturn - that's it... but really any sized object can orbit a star from a pebble to gas giant. If you said a planet was something that orbits a star but it's the size of a pebble then most people would say well that's not a planet... but at what point does the pebble get big enough to constitute a planet... If we said it's when it's large enough that gravity forms it into a spheroidal object then that's well and good but how close to a sphere does it have to be... You see it's all very grey... Then when objects are out in the outer solar system with the comets are they a planet or a large comet? are they an asteroid... Most planets in the inner solar system clear out all the asteroids in their path and they become part of the planet. However way out in the oort cloud and the kuiper belt it's too far out to gather all the small asteroids into a larger body... They are really just large comets/asteroids etc... Also if an object is larger than a planet but is actually a moon and orbits a planet is that a planet? Some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are bigger than Mercury.

This is why I say the word planet is really just a convenience in our language. Better off just describing what the object really is and stop obsessing over the word.
Click to expand...
Some good info in that post brother.

I can't resist saying 'though that nobody's ever seen the Oort Cloud, not even Jan Oort. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top